I don’t blame Jorge Ramos for ripping President Obama over his delay on immigration reform, but I do get annoyed when the people who demanded that he make the delay get off without a word of criticism coming their way. Let’s tell people why the president delayed action and not just talk about broken promises.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
Ramos always comes across to me as being desperate to find the ‘ sensible Republicans’. He’s mad cause he can’t find any, because he doesn’t want to give any Democrats any credit.
I get tired of people not understanding how the process works.
The President is the one person who didn’t want to do it this way. He wants PERMANENT solutions. He knows that whatever he does by Executive Order could be UNDONE by the next President. But, if it’s a passed LAW, it doesn’t matter who is President. Which is why it’s important who is elected to Congress.
I compare immigration to DADT.
The LGBT screamed..
WHY DOESN’T OBAMA JUST DO AN EXECUTIVE ORDER ON DADT???
He had a plan…
And, he worked on it…
He got the Joint Chiefs and the Defense Department, and worked it through CONGRESS, and got CONGRESS to pass it.
Once Congress passed it and he SIGNED IT…
it would be damn near impossible for a new President to undo it.
See what President Obama did when he had a DEMOCRATIC House AND Senate?
Why the phuck isn’t Ramos leading protests on Orange Julius’s office? Remember, the Senate passed Immigration Reform OVER A DAMN YEAR AGO. It is Orange Julius who won’t bring it to the floor. Now, maybe the Democrats wouldn’t vote for it, and they couldn’t find the 20 Republicans that would vote for it..but, we don’t know it because ORANGE JULIUS WON’T BRING IT UP FOR A VOTE.
THAT is the Problem, Mr. Ramos. A PERMANENT SOLUTION, not depending upon the ‘whim’ of a President is sitting in the House… It is the REPUBLICANS THAT WON’T BRING IT TO A VOTE.
Give me a break. Obama said he’d take unilateral steps around this time and now he’s going back on that because pause he’s afraid of Republicans getting riled and taking the senate. Was this somehiw beyond his notice in June? Is there any prospects of a Dem House and Senate befire 2016?
The official word is he doesnt want to politicize the issue and make it harder to do comprehensive reform. The first is laughable and the second is something I covered above. Reform happens under full Dem control and not before or demography cracks the GOP. Either way its not going to matter in 2016 that Obama delays now. Its perfectly legitimate to be upset.
Oh by the way, Ramos has taken Boehner to task. Using the very words you wrote. Here’s an example.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jorge-ramos-john-boehner-immigration
Attending one press conference of Orange Julius is not pressure. There is one obstacle to Immigration Reform – House Republicans.
Know your allies.
He did this at the request of Democrats running for the Senate in places like Arkansas, Georgia and North Carolina – all of which have large and growing Hispanic populations.
All you need to know about this is that it was recommended by Bob Shrum. That makes it wrong until proven right. This is the “politics in a defensive crouch” that typified Democratic politics before Obama.
Really disappointing.
requires holding two of three: LA, PVI R+12. Ark, PVI R+14, NC R+3, AK, PVI R+14, or alternatively winning GA, PVI R+6 or KY, PVI R+13.
BTW – since 1998 there have been 12 incumbent Senators in PVI -10 states who were under 50 going into September. 10 have lost. The last to actually win was Johnson in SD in 2002, before that you have to go back to Hollings in 1998.
Note also there were 12 between 2012 and 1998. There are three in this cycle alone.
Hagen, Prior, Landrieu and Begich are all under 50. And to hold the Senate we have to win two of those seats.
The Senate being decided in deep red states. This is apparently too much for some to understand.
And running Crist is supposed to inspire Democrats in Florida? Why should Democrats vote for Landrieu? I think you forget why people turn out. Sure, lots of non-white people are getting turned off by the GOP. So far, Democrats have been turning them off too, unnecessarily.
bit of evidence to support the “only if they moved left” they would turnout. Zero.
Seriously, show me examples of cases where turnout was increased in mid-term elections.
Because as Pew has noted, the gap between Presidential and Mid-term turnout had been stable since WW2.
I HATE running Crist in Florida – but Crist is not running for the Senate.
Landrieu’s problem isn’t getting Democrats to vote – its that there aren’t enough of them in a PVI R+13 state.
Kansas. Check out the Gubernatorial and Senate debates that were held today.
(Camera was too far away from the candidates to assess visual charisma. Perhaps the next debate will reveal more on this factor.)
My impression is that Brownback’s record is too crappy and Davis is too scrappy for Brownback to get a second term.
Orman is going to have to up his game. (His speaking voice isn’t the best.) Roberts blamed Obama and Harry Reid for the Senate’s failure to pass the House garbage legislation. Orman did way too much of that “I agree with Roberts” as Gore did in one of the debates with GWB. Then proceeded to do the pox on both political parties. He scored his best points when he challenged Roberts and the GOP record. Roberts is essentially running on terrorism, tax cuts anti-Obamacare, anti-Harry Reid, and the “liberal Democrat Party.” Oh, and he just loves Kansas (as long as he doesn’t have to live there). Against a better debater, Roberts aggressive whininess would have been pathetic. As it was Orman only managed a draw and that’s usually not good enough against an incumbent.
This is a case in which the lack of message discipline among the Democratic caucus on Congress undercut the White House’s and the Democratic Leadership’s stated positions and strategy by muddying the differences between the two parties.